D. K. SETH, J. The dispute with regard to seniority between Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 and respondent No. 4 in Writ Peti tion No. 20007 of 1995, and Dr. Purshottam Prasad Pathak the petitioner in Writ Peti tion No. 20007 of 1995 and respondents No. 5 and 4 respectively in writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995, is the subject-matter of all these writ petitions, claiming one or the other relief. The facts are common. The relief claimed in the said three writ petitions is dependent on the determination of seniority. For the sake of convenience the writ petitions are taken up together since common questions of facts and law are in volved in all these three writ petitions. 2. Dr. Purshottam Prasad Pathak, was appointed as Instructor in Sampurnanad Sanskrit University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the university) on 10th July 1970. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh was ap pointed as Instructor in the said University on 31st August 1977. Both of them filed Writ Petition Nos. 5320 of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 respectively, for treating them as lecturer. On 10th October 1984 Section 31-Awas incorporated in the U. P. State Universities Act by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1985, introducing a Scheme, commonly known as personal Promotion Schemes. On 21st February, 1985 Statute 11. 12-B was added to the Statute of the said University. On 9th March 1987 Dr. Pathak was ap pointed a Head of the Department. In the year 1990 Dr. Singh was- appointed as Lec turer. On 25th April 1992 Dr. Singh was allowed benefit of Personal Promotion Scheme and was promoted to the post of Reader. By an order dated 22nd May 1992 both the said Writ Petition Nos. 5320 of 1982 and 6278 of 1982 were allowed. By reason of the said order the post of Instruc tor were treated as Lecturer. The judgment in the said two Writ Petitions along with several others stood, affirmed by reason of judgment dated 6th May, 1994 delivered by the Apex Court. 5320 of 1982 and 6278 of 1982 were allowed. By reason of the said order the post of Instruc tor were treated as Lecturer. The judgment in the said two Writ Petitions along with several others stood, affirmed by reason of judgment dated 6th May, 1994 delivered by the Apex Court. Pursuant to the said judg ment treating all the Instructors as lecturer the University granted benefit of promotion to the post of Readers from the respective dates when the same became date pursuant to the rule applicable for the purposes by the University by an order dated 26th February, 1995. Dr. Singh made a repre sentation before the Chancellor against the promotion of Dr. Pathak. On 26th March, 1995 the University issued an order promot ing Dr. Pathak and preparing a seniority list. The same was challenged by Dr. Singh in Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995. In terms of the order, dated llth July, 1995 passed in the said case, upon request being made to the Chancellor for deciding the repre sentation made by Dr. Singh on 6-3-1995, the Chancellor decided the said repre sentation, holding that the promotion of Dr. Pathak was valid. But, however, the question of seniority was directed to be decided by the Seniority Committee. The said order of the Chancellor was also chal lenged by means of amendment made in the Writ Petition No. 18331 of 1995. By an order dated 15th July 1995 the University allowed Dr. Singh to be treated as senior to Dr. Pathak until the question of seniority is decided by the Seniority Committee. This order dated 16th July 1995 is challenged by Dr. Pathak in Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995. On 21-9-1995 the Seniority Commit tee decided Dr. Pathak as senior to Dr. Singh. The decision of the Seniority Com mittee was questioned by Dr. Singh by means of a representation filed by him before the Chancellor. By an order dated 27-11-1995 the Chancellor directed the Ex ecutive Council to decide the petitioners representation and not to give effect to the order of Seniority Committee till the said representation/appeal against the order of Seniority Committee is decided. The said order dated 27-11-1995 was challenged by Dr. Pathak in Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995. By an order dated 6-12-1995 the Ex ecutive Council, was directed to decide the matter and submit a report while Dr. The said order dated 27-11-1995 was challenged by Dr. Pathak in Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995. By an order dated 6-12-1995 the Ex ecutive Council, was directed to decide the matter and submit a report while Dr. Pathak was restrained from functioning. By an order dated 16-12-1995 the Executive Council decided the appeal against Dr. Singh holding Dr. Pathak as senior to the petitioner. This order dated 16-12-1995 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 filed by Dr. Singh on 22-12- 1995. By an order dated 2-1-1996 Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 was directed to be listed alongwith Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 20007/95. On 3-1- 1996 Dr. Pathak got his Writ Petition No. 35179 of 1995 dismissed as not pressed. By an order dated 23- 1-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 status-quo-ante to the impugned order was directed to be maintained. This is now all these cases arise. 3. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-af fidavits have been exchanged between the parties in two of the Writ Petitions while Sri R. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respon dents contends that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 since the same has be come in fructuous on the ground that the order impugned has lost its force by reason of determination of seniority subsequent to the said order inasmuch as by the said order the present seniority was directed to con tinue till the seniority is determined. 4. By means of an application for amendment Sri L. P. Naitham, appearing on behalf of Dr. Pathak, sought to incorporate amendment, seeking to challenge the ap pointment of Dr. Singh, for the post of Reader by an order dated 25-4-1992 under Personal Promotion Scheme. But the same was rejected on being opposed by Sri R. N. Singh on the ground of delay and latches and on account of point raised by him as to the maintainability of application after ces sation of the impact of the order impugned in the writ petition, as pointed out by him earlier, which submission, we find to be of substance. 5. 5. So far as Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 is concerned it appears that in the said writ petition following prayers were made: " (a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16-7-1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the University. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the working of the petitioner as Head of Department Bhartiya Vidya Sanskrit Evam Pramanpatriya Vibhag Sankey. " 6. By an order dated 16-7-1995 it was directed that unless the seniority between Dr. Pathak and Dr. Singh is decided accord ing to Statute 18. 09 by the Seniority Com mittee Dr. Singh shall remain Head of the Department and Member of the Council. The scope of writ petition was therefore, confined only to the extent of purview of the said order, as specified therein. The scope and ambit of the writ petition, confined only to the question of decision by the Seniority Committee. The said order was valid till the decision by the Seniority Committee is taken. Admittedly the Seniority Committee decided the question by an order dated 22-9-1993 and the appeal there out was decided by order dated 16-12-1995, which was again challenged in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995. By reason of the interim order granted in the said Writ Petition the position as contained in the said impugned order dated 16-7-1995 continued to remain operative. Therefore by fiction the said order dated 16-7-1995 cannot be said to have ceased. Therefore we are unable to accept the con tention of Sri R. N. Singh that the said writ petition has become in fructuous. However, nothing remains to be decided in the said writ petitions since the order impugned is in effect was issued by an interim measure until the seniority is decided finally. There fore the question is dependent on the decision in the matter of seniority. We, therefore, propose to proceed with Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995 on the outcome whereof the fate of parties are dependent and any decision therein would render the Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 in fructuous. 7. Writ petition No. 18331 of 1995 challenging the order dated 26-3-1995 granting promotion to Dr. Pathak and determining seniority of Dr. Pathak, above the petitioner involved question which is inter- mixed with the question raised in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995. 7. Writ petition No. 18331 of 1995 challenging the order dated 26-3-1995 granting promotion to Dr. Pathak and determining seniority of Dr. Pathak, above the petitioner involved question which is inter- mixed with the question raised in Writ Petition No. 38259 of 1995. The facts of all the three cases have been summarized, as above. We, therefore, propose to proceed to decide the cases accordingly. 8. Now the facts as mentioned above are admitted. But the validity of promotion and fixation of seniority are under challenge by one or other of the parties against each other. 9. Sri R,n. Singh, learned counsel con tends that Statute 11. 12- B (7) provides that personal promotion on the post of Reader or Professor shall take effect from the date of taking over charge of the said post. Dr. Singh having taken over charge of the posts of Reader on 25-4-1992 is senior to Dr. Pathak because Dr. Pathak was promoted to the post of Reader only on 26-3-1995 and, therefore, he cannot take over charge in the post of Reader before 25-4-1992. As such by no stretch of imagination Dr. Pathak can be treated to be senior to Dr. Singh. On the other hand Sri Naithani, learned counsel for Dr. Pathak contends that Dr. Singh cannot be promoted on the post of Reader on 25-4-1992 after haying been appointed in the post of Lecturer in 1990 since the eligibility for promotion to the post of Reader under Per sonal Promotion Scheme as provided in Statute 11. 12-B (1) has not been fulfilled because of the fact that the said appoint ment on the post of Reader was made on 25-4-1992 before the judgment passed in the said Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982. He further contends that the reasons contained in the order dated 16-12-1995 since chal lenged is well reasoned one and there being no infirmity the same can not be interfered with. According to him the post of Instruc tor having been treated as Lecturer right from the date of initial appointment of the incumbent the petitioner is entitled to claim his seniority as from the date of his appoint ment namely, 10-7-1970. While Dr. Singh can claim it since 31-8-1977 or atleast since 1-9-1976 when he was initially appointed as claimed by him. While Dr. Singh can claim it since 31-8-1977 or atleast since 1-9-1976 when he was initially appointed as claimed by him. Therefore, the question of Personal Promotion Scheme on completion of the qualification laid down in Statute 11. 12-B. Thereafter several other candidates working on the post of Instructor all were to be giving benefit. Dr. Singh cannot be singled out for giving special benefit though he was not eligible there for prior to the judgment delivered in the said case. 10. According to Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for Dr. Singh the question become irrelevant in view of Statute 11. 12-B (7), particularly when Dr. Singhs promo tion to the post of Lecturer in 1990 has no where been challenged and is out-side the scope and ambit of present writ petition. Similarly order dated 25-4-1992 having also not been challenged and the application for amendment having been rejected there is no scope to go into the said questions on the basis of issue raised in the present Writ Petition. 11. We have also heard Sri Anil Tiwari learned counsel appearing for the Univer sity. He has made the entire record available before us. He has also explained in detail while producing the said record through which we were led and we have occasion to peruse the said records. 12. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the records the facts emerges are recorded and dealt in the manner here-in-after. 13. Statute 11. 12-B which is germane for decision in the case runs as follows: "11-12-B (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Statute 11. 02 or in any other Statutes the following categories of teachers of the University shall be eligible for personal promotion to the post of Readers or Professors as the case may be. Readerspost- (1) Lecturers who are Ph. D and have put in at least 18 years fulltime continuous service, as such. (ii) Lecturers, who are not Ph. D but have put in atleast 16 years full time continuous service as such. Professors post- Readers who have put in atleast loyears full time continuous service as such. Readerspost- (1) Lecturers who are Ph. D and have put in at least 18 years fulltime continuous service, as such. (ii) Lecturers, who are not Ph. D but have put in atleast 16 years full time continuous service as such. Professors post- Readers who have put in atleast loyears full time continuous service as such. Explanation-Reader shall mean a teacher who has worked as Reader in University (2) The service, referred to in clause (1), must have been rendered on an approved post- (i) in permanent, temporary or ad hoc capacity (ii) in this University or in any other Univer sity. Post-Graduate or Under-graduate college or institute, so however that at least five years permanent service must have been rendered in this University after regular selection through the selection committee constituted under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act. (3) The teacher of the University who is eligible for personal promotion shall submit in a Self-Assessment Report in the proforma given in Appendix-E, containing information relating to his satisfactory work, to the Registrar. Explanation-Satisfactory work shall mean the work done with reference to the work ex pected from a teacher of the University under University Regulation, Statutes or Ordinances. (4) The Selection Committee, constituted under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act, shall consider the Self-Assessment Report Service Record (including Character roll) and such other relevant records as may be placed before, or as considered necessary by it. The meet ing of the Selection Committee for considering cases of personal promotion shall be held atleast once every year. (5) The Selection Committee shall submit its recommendation to the Executive Council shall subject to the provisions of clause (6) grant personal promotion on the basis of such recom mendation. (6) The benefit of personal promotion shall be admissible to Lecturers for promotion to the post of Reader only and Reader so appointed by promotion shall not be entitled to personal promotion on the post of Professor. (7) Personal promotion on the post of Reader or Professor, as the case may be, shall take effect from the date of talking over charge of the said post. (8) As a result of personal promotion, there shall be no reduction in the workload of the teacher of the University. (7) Personal promotion on the post of Reader or Professor, as the case may be, shall take effect from the date of talking over charge of the said post. (8) As a result of personal promotion, there shall be no reduction in the workload of the teacher of the University. (9) In case a teacher of the University is not found suitable for personal promotion he may offer himself again for such promotion after two years and he shall be considered by the Selection, Committee alongwith the teachers of the Univer sity who have since become eligible. (10) In case the Selection Committee does not find a teacher of the University suitable for personal promotion, it shall state the reasons. (11) (i) The post of Reader or Professor, to which personal promotion is made shall be deemed to be temporary addition to the cadre of Professor or Reader as the case may be, and the post shall stand abolished on the incumbent ceas ing to occupy it. (ii) On the Reader ceasing to occupy the post of Professor to which he was given personal, promotion new appointment, if any; shall be made on the post of Reader and similarly on the Lec turer ceasing to occupy to pest of Reader, new appointment, if any, shall be made on the post of Lecturer. " 14. The criterion for promotion to the post of Reader as laid down in clause (i) of the Statute 11. 12-B is that in order to be eligible for such promotion one must be Lecturer with Ph. D. having put in 13 years full time continuous service or 16 years such service, if without Ph. D. Now as the fact reveals on his own showing that the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in 1990. On the date of his promotion to the post of Reader on 25-4- 1992 when judg ment in the case of Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 did not come Dr. Singh had put up continuous service only for about two years. Admittedly both the parties namely, Dr. Singh and Dr. Pathak possessed degree of Ph. D. Therefore 13 years full time contenuous service is a pre-requisite for being promoted to the post of Reader. Admittedly without the order passed in the said Writ Petition no. 6278 of 1982 Dr. Singh had put up continuous service only for about two years. Admittedly both the parties namely, Dr. Singh and Dr. Pathak possessed degree of Ph. D. Therefore 13 years full time contenuous service is a pre-requisite for being promoted to the post of Reader. Admittedly without the order passed in the said Writ Petition no. 6278 of 1982 Dr. Singh was not eligible for promotion to the post of Reader he could, however, claimed that he had put in 13 years service as lecturer after 22-5-1992 on the strength that his service in the post of Instructor being treated as that of lecturer right from the date of his appoint ment namely in 1977 he could be eligible therefore. But at the time when promotion was granted as claimed by the petitioner Dr. Singh can not be said to be eligible for the same. 15. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the University on the other hand contends that Dr. Singhs promotion to the post of Reader was never recognised by the Univer sity nor the same was acted upon. In the supplementary affidavit filed he has specifi cally contended relying on the records to the said effect. Upon screening of the record as explained by Mr. Tiwari we have found that the file relating to Dr. Singhs promoter the post of Reader is not traceable. Though the same was directed to be traced out along with the financial sanction but the same could not be located. The said facts are revealed from the record which we had oc casion to scrutinize ourselves since being supported by the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri Anil Tiwari which does not differ from the records we have inspected. It also appear from the record relating to fixation of pay of Dr. Singh that Dr. Singh continued in the scale of lecturer till the end of 1994 until his pay was fixed at the scale and grade of Reader. 16. It also appears, as contended by Sri Tiwari and which according to us is possible explanation as is also pleaded in the counter-affidavit. That the stand taken by the University is that Dr. Singh continued in the scale of lecturer till the end of 1994 until his pay was fixed at the scale and grade of Reader. 16. It also appears, as contended by Sri Tiwari and which according to us is possible explanation as is also pleaded in the counter-affidavit. That the stand taken by the University is that Dr. Singh could not have been promoted to the post of Reader without taking into account his services in the post of Instructor as that of Lecturer which can only be done only with the aid of decision in Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 which awaited the decision when order of promotion to the post of Reader was issued. However, despite the alleged allegation that Dr. Singh was promoted to the post of Reader but the University had neither recognised nor accepted the said promotion neither had fixed the pay of Dr. Singh in the post of Reader. It had never acted upon the alleged promotion claimed by Dr. Singh. The said stand point support from the docu ments produced before us, which clearly reveals that promotion of Dr. Singh was not acted upon. On the other hand by reason of the order passed in different writ petition including that in Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 the post of Instructor having been treated as lecturer, all Instructors including the petitioners were required to be con sidered as lecturer with effect from the respective date of their appointment in the post of Instructor. Only after the said order became final when the Apex court by its order dated 6-5-1994 affixed its seal of ap proval by having been pleased to decline to interfere with the said judgment. 17. Admittedly, by reason of the said judgment all persons working as Instructor were considered as lecturer. Therefore, the petitioner can not be treated differently From all those instructors who were similar ly situated with him and be given promotion to the post of Readers to all other persons with effect from 26-3-1995 while maintain ing that of Dr. Singh as on 25-4-1992. 18. On the other hand in view of the said judgment the University had to arrange its own house in order and grant benefit by way of policy decision to all the Instructors treated to be lecturer by way of administra tive measure. Singh as on 25-4-1992. 18. On the other hand in view of the said judgment the University had to arrange its own house in order and grant benefit by way of policy decision to all the Instructors treated to be lecturer by way of administra tive measure. The decision of the University to grant promotion to the post of Reader to all the instructors treated as lecturer from the date of their respective eligibility upon fulfillment of the criterion contained in Statute 11j2-B (1) can not be assailed and interfere d with in exercise of writ jurisdic tion. That decision of the University is an administrative decision to treat all equal persons equally and thereby granting equal benefit to that particular group to which the petitioners belong including the petitioners as well. Inasmuch as while promoting to the post of Reader was dated on the fulfillment of his eligibility namely in 13 years of ser vice of Dr. Palhak in 1983 and to Dr. Singh In 1991. While giving similar benefit to all other similar) situated candidates. This benefit is being given by reason of judgment in the said writ petition No. 6278 of 1982. 19. Moreover the file relating to petitioners promotion and the financial sanction are not available and admittedly the same was never acted upon, neither the same was ever recognised. 20. Since as on 25-4-1992 the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criterion for promotion to the post of Reader in term of Statute 11. 12-8 (1) and the fact of his taking over charge of the post is disputed it is very difficult to accept Sri R. N. Singhs contention based on clause (7) of Statute 11. 12-B, though Sri Singh had stressed greatly on clause (7) and (9) of Statute 11. 12-B, but the same does not help him inasmuch as the very taking over charge has not been proved and which according to us as we have found from the record had never been acted upon. On the other hand there was no scope for considering the case of Dr. Pathak or other Instructors for being considered under clause (9) since their case could not have been considered in terms of clause (9) prior to the judgment in the case of 6-2-1978 and the scope therefor had never arisen. On the other hand there was no scope for considering the case of Dr. Pathak or other Instructors for being considered under clause (9) since their case could not have been considered in terms of clause (9) prior to the judgment in the case of 6-2-1978 and the scope therefor had never arisen. In the present case as a policy matter the University having granted benefit of Statute 11. 12- B (1) to all the In structors declared lecturer by fiction the ef fect of Clause (7) of Statute 11-12-B would be the respective dates on which the Univer sity had decided to grant promotion to the post of Reader to each of the Instructors since declared lecturer. 21. Then again in the present case decision of the University to grant promo tion to all the Instructors declared lecturer from the respective date of eligibility in terms of Statute 11. 12-B (1) as an ad ministrative measure is not under challenge before this court in any of these petitions. The challenge is thrown by Dr. Singh only with regard to the case of Dr. Pathak out of the said decision of the University which again had taken a decision in implementing the judgment in Writ Petition No. 6278 or 1982 and all other similar writ petitions to which Dr. Singh was also one of the parties. Unless the said decision is set aside only individual consequential order pursuant to such decision can not be singled out for being assailed independently and in dividually so long the decision itself operates. 22. Over and above Dr. Singh has also not challenged the decision with regard to fixation of his pay in the scale of Reader with effect from 1991 a date earlier than the alleged date of his promotion claimed by him and had in fact, acceded to the same. No where he has disclaimed his entitlement to the arrears that might be made available pursuant to the said pay fixation in the scale and grade of Reader with effect from 1991. No such statement, however, has been made at the bar during the course of argument. Dr. Singh can not be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath, inasmuch as once he will be claiming scale and grade of Reader since 1991 and then again would contend that he had taken over charge in April 1992 and, therefore, Dr. No such statement, however, has been made at the bar during the course of argument. Dr. Singh can not be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath, inasmuch as once he will be claiming scale and grade of Reader since 1991 and then again would contend that he had taken over charge in April 1992 and, therefore, Dr. Pathak can not be treated senior to him because his promotion was ordered and effected pur suant to the order dated 26-3-1995 though given retrospective operation Dr. Pathak could not have taken over charge prior to 26-3-1995 and, as such, could be junior under clause (7 ). Such contention is wholly misconceived, in view of the reasons that all Instructors since declared Lecturers have been given promotion to the post of Reader under Statute 11. 12-B (1) from the respec tive date of their eligibility in terms thereof by fiction the respective incumbents are supposed and deemed to have taken over charge on the respective date of promotion assigned in the case of respective can didates. 23. Since Dr. Singh can not be eligible in terms of Statute 11-12-3 (1) as on 25-4-1992 the alleged promotion, the effect whereof has not been established and is also appears to be doubtful, such promotion of Dr. Singh can not be sustained on account of its being void, when particular eligibility criterion has been provided which does not-conceive of any relaxation no person without qualification could be promoted and any promotion if given would be void and nullity. In case Dr. Singh wanted to take advantage of the decision in Writ Petition No. 6278 of 1982 in that event the same benefit is to be given to Dr. Pathak as well. Dr. Singh can not be allowed to eat the cake and have it too. The translation of the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 16-12-1995 has been furnished to us. The relevant portion of the impugned order was also handed over and translated at the bar we have not been able to decipher any inconsistency or infirmity in the said order. 24. Mr. R. N. Singh has referred to the decision in the case of Dr. Suman Aganval Vice-Chancellor and others (1996) 1 SCC 632 , in support of his contention that the question of seniority should be determined on the basis of the length of continuous service in the cadre. 24. Mr. R. N. Singh has referred to the decision in the case of Dr. Suman Aganval Vice-Chancellor and others (1996) 1 SCC 632 , in support of his contention that the question of seniority should be determined on the basis of the length of continuous service in the cadre. According to him, Dr. Singh having taken over the charge as Reader before the order of promotion of Dr. Pathak was issued, therefore, Dr. Singh should be treated as senior to Dr. Pathak. There is no doubt about the ratio decided in the case of Dr. Suman Agarwal (supra) wherein Statute 17-05 (b) of the Agra University had provided that in the same cadre inter se seniority of the teachers ap pointed by personal promotion or by direct recruitment shall be determined according to the length of continuous service in such cadre. In the present case, as has been held earlier that Dr. Singhs appointment was not acted upon and that he was not eligible for appointment in 1992 in the post of Reader on the strength of his appointment in the post of Lecturer in 1990 without the aid of the decision in his writ petition by which Instructors were treated as Lecturers, The said benefit is available to all the In structors similarly situated including Dr. Pathak whose promotion to the post of Reader was dated since 1983 while that of the petitioner being since 1991. The ratio decided in the said case can not be said to be supporting Dr. Singh, in the facts and cir cumstances of the present case. 25. Similarly the decision in the case of Dr. Bat Krishna Agarwal v. Stale of U. P. and others (1995) 1 SCC 614 , cited by Mr. R. N Singh does not help him in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. In the said case, while interpreting Statute 18. 06 and 18. 08 of the Statute of Allahabad University, it was held that the inter se seniority between direct recruit and the per sonal promotees shall be determined ac cording to the length, of continuous service in substantive capacity in such cadre and in case the date of appointment is the same, then the length of service below the rank is to be considered. But in the present case, the date of promotion having been accorded on the basis of length of service in the post of Instructor since treated as Lecturer, the ratio decided in the said case rendered no assistance to the petitioner. 26. The ratio decided in the case of The Banaras Hindu University and another v. Dr. N. N. Pandita J,t 1994 (5) SC 537, does not help the petitioner. Inasmuch as the facts of the said case are altogether different and distinguishable from those of the present case. In the said case, the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee on 28th September, 1983. The meeting of the Executive Council took place on 30th Sep tember 1983 and 1st October 1983 but the petitioners appointment was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 3rd/4th February 1984. The petitioner claimed that he should have been appointed under the Merit Promotion Scheme with effect from 30th September 1983/ist Oc tober 1983 which claim was allowed by the High Court but the Apex Court held the same to be incorrect and upheld the decision of the University treating the petitioner to have been appointed and his seniority being counted from 3rd/4th February 1984. Therefore, the Court was not called upon to decide the question as emerged in the present case and altogether on a different situation as is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 27. The ratio decided in the case of Union of India & Am. v. Prof. S. K. Sharma AIR 1992 SC 1188 , does not help the petitioners case inasmuch as in the said case while officiating on ad hoc basis as Professor (Senior Scale), the petitioner was granted senior scale pay, yet the seniority is to be determined on the basis of regular appointment in the post of Professor and not from the date he officiated as Professor on ad hoc/officiating basis. In the present case, the petitioner was also not allowed the scale of Reader. Then again his appoint ment was also not recognised and that too he did not qualify for appointment as Reader in 1992 as held earlier. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the one at hand and, as such, the same also does not help Dr. Singh. 28. Similarly the decision in the case of D. K. Reddy \. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different from the one at hand and, as such, the same also does not help Dr. Singh. 28. Similarly the decision in the case of D. K. Reddy \. Union of India and others JT 1995 SC 432 also does not help the petitioner in view of the fact that the facts of the said case are completely different. In the said case, the seniority was determined on the basis of the seniority list dated 22nd July 1987 which had become final between the parties. Here no such case arises. In the present case, the question is altogether dif ferent as is apparent on a comparison of the facts of the respective cases mentioned herein. 29. The decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Balwant Singh JT 1996 (5) SC 333 : 1996 (2) LBESR 981 (SC), also does not help Dr. Singh though reliance was placed by Mr. R. N. Singh on the ratio decided therein. Inasmuch as in the said case, the petitioners were selected and their seniority was prepared according to the merits but because of the pendency of the writ petition, they could not join, they joined only in 1985 after the dismissal of the writ petition when letters of appointment were issued. The claim of seniority from the date of selection was overruled on the ground that the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of joining the service. But in the present case it is not a question of join ing of service. It is a case where the incum bents were described as Instructors and have been treated to be lecturers by reason of the decision of the writ petition pursuant to which by means of a policy decision, all incumbents are given retrospective promotion to the post of Reader on fulfill ment of eligibility criteria by respective can didates and, therefore, by fiction, an incum bent shall be deemed to have joined as Reader un the respective dates assigned to them for the purpose of fixing seniority. The ratio decided in the said case cannot be imported in the present case so as to enable Dr. Singh to have any benefit there out. 30. On the other hand, as pointed out by Mr. Naithani from paragraph 13 in the case of Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal (supra) that promotion of Dr. The ratio decided in the said case cannot be imported in the present case so as to enable Dr. Singh to have any benefit there out. 30. On the other hand, as pointed out by Mr. Naithani from paragraph 13 in the case of Dr. Bal Krishna Agarwal (supra) that promotion of Dr. Singh to the post of Reader could not be recognised unless he had fulfilled the requisite qualification. The Apex Court in the said paragraph was pleased to observe: "it is no doubt true that the validity of promotion of Respondents 4 and 5 has not been assailed by the appellant but all that he is pointing out is that in view of the provisions contained in Section 31-A of the Act the promotion of Respon dents 4 and 5 under the Personal Promotion Scheme could be made only after the length of service and qualifications were prescribed by the Statutes and provisions in this regard were made in the Statutes only on 21. 2. 1985. In other words, what the appellant is saying is that the promotion of respondents 4 and 5 to the grade of Professor can be regarded to have been made legally only with effect from 21-2-1985. This does not involve a challenge to the validity of their promotion but only raises the question about the date from which it can be given effect to in law. We are of the opinion that in view of the provisions contained in Section 31-Aand Section 2 (14) of the Act there is no escape from the conclusion that Respondents 4 and 5 could not be given promotion under the Personal Promotion Scheme till the necessary provisions prescribing the length of service and the qualifications for such promotion were made in the Statutes and since this was done by Notifica tion dated 21-2-1985, promotion under the Per sonal Promotion Scheme could not be made prior to 21-2- 1985. The Executive Council in its Resolution No. 198 dated 8-11-1984 had ac cepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee for promotion of Respondents 4 and 5 on the basis of Government Orders dated 12-12-1983 and 25-2-1984. At that time Section 31 of the Act provided for appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and did not envisage promo tion from a lower teaching post to a higher teach ing post. At that time Section 31 of the Act provided for appointment of teachers by direct recruitment and did not envisage promo tion from a lower teaching post to a higher teach ing post. The orders of the Government aforementioned could not be given effect till necessary amendment was made in the- Act making provision for personal promotion. This was done by introducing Section 31-A by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1985 with effect from 10-10-1984. But Section 31-A could be given effect only after the necessary provision was made in the Statutes prescribing the length of service and the qualifica tions for personal promotion. This was done by the notification dated 21-2- 1985. The promotion of Respondents 4 and 5 to the grade of Professor under new Personal Promotion Scheme could, therefore, not be made prior to 21-2-1985 and it has to be treated to have been made with effect from 21-2-1985. The inter se seniority of the ap pellant and Respondents 4 and 5 has to be deter mined on that basis. " 31. In view of the aforesaid observa tion, at best the date of promotion to the post of Reader so far as Dr. Pathak is con cerned can be dated back to 21st February 1985 and not in 1983. But even then Dr. Singh could not qualify due to his length of service until 1991. In that respect as well, Dr. Singh could not claim seniority over Dr. Pathak in the facts and circumstances of the case. 32. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, Dr. Singhs claim can not be sustained and accordingly Writ Peti tion Nos. 18331 of 1995 and 38259 of 1995 are hereby dismissed. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned fixing the seniority of Dr. Pathak above Dr. Singh. By reason of dismissal of the said two writ peti tions, Writ Petition No. 20007 of 1995 be comes in fructuous and, as such, the same is dismissed accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .